On 07/30/2012 07:26 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Richard Fontana wrote:
> some found this objectionable on policy grounds, because they didn't
> like the idea that a downstream licensee could impose a more restrictive
> license than they themselves had chosen upstream.
So, this is an interesting point on this issue. Is that really why those
who objected had issue? After all, any weaker copyleft license can allow
for such restrictions by downstream.
Does your point here relate to what has been called the "copyleft
perfection theory of GPLv2"?
I think most people who generally like copyleft have a Platonic ideal in
their minds of what their preferred copyleft license is, and then
selectively read a given copyleft license to have those properties.
Having lived myself mostly in the reality of seeking compliance for GPLv2,
but preferring GPLv3, I've had to dissuade myself of my Platonic ideals of
copyleft and just focus on what the license actually says.
I wonder if copyleft-next can actually address this issue at all. Is its
goal to be the Platonic ideal of copyleft for everyone?
Assuming I understand what you mean here, no, that is not a goal. I
don't see how it is achievable, because we know that there are
multiple, clashing ideals of copyleft -- at least if we mean strong
At most, in allowing for outbound compatibility with GPLv2+/AGPLv3+, I
believe copyleft-next accommodates the views of those who believe that
one or more of those licenses more closely approximates their own
ideal of what copyleft should mean.
(Sorry, I hope in advance philosophical debate is appropriate on
I certainly consider such debate appropriate.